Before William LEWTHWAITE  (in the chair),
    John GUNSON,  W. J. YARR, and W. T.
    BARRATT, Esqs.
            BREACH OF THE PEACE.
    Thomas SINGLETON and Thomas PATTIN-
SON were charge on warrants, with breach
of the peace at the Hill.--P.C. HAMILTON
said these men should have appeared at the
last court, and, failing to do so, had been
apprehended on the warrant.  Both men
alleged that the other had been the aggres-
sor.  They were each bound over to keep the
peace and pay the costs 15s each.  The Chair-
man said they had increased the costs by
5s each through not appearing.
               OBSCENE LANGUAGE.
    Johnstone REDHEAD was charged on a
warrant with using obscene language.--P.C.
HAMILTON proved the case, and added that
REDHEAD was summoned to appear at the
last court but failed to do so and was appre-
hened on a warrant.  REDHEAD admitted the
offence and was fined £1 including costs.
    There appeared in the list a case in which
Thomas MARSHALL was summoned by the
Bootle  Board  of  Guardians in respect to
arrears in lunacy for his wife.  There was
only one magistrate eligible to sit on the
case, and as another could not be obtained
the case was adjourned.  The Town Clerk:
If he pays before the case comes on I'll with-
draw it.--MARSHALL made no answer.

    Edward BOND, who did not appear, was
summoned by the Millom School Board for
not sending his child regularly to school.
Out of 108 possible, 52 attendances had
been made.  An order with a 7s 6d penalty
had been made in August, and he now asked
for distraint.  An order of attendance was
made.  A distress warrant was granted.
Charles John GILLS was also summoned.
His child had made 157 attendances out of
208.  Mrs. GILES said the child was fourteen
years of age.  Mr. MILLAR produced a birth
certificate showing that the child was thir-
teen years of age.  An order for attendance
was made.  In June last an order was made
with 7s 6d penalty, and Mr. MILLAR now
applied for a distress warrant, which was
granted.  The Chairman:  You can tell the
Millom School Board these cases should be
taken under the Act and not the by-laws.--
Distress warrants were issued against Robert
CARLETON in two cases, and against Thomas
                WIFE MAINTENANCE
    James KENNY was summoned in respect
to wife maintenance.  Mr.  Wm. WILLIAMS
appeared for the plaintiff, and said this was
as application for the commitment for non-
payment of £7 10s., arrears due to Mrs.
KENNY on a maintenance order made on
October 5th at that court.  The defendant
was summoned on August 10th of last year
for persistent cruelty, and an order was made
for 12s 6d per week.  Subsequently the de-
fendant was before the Court for non-payment
of arrears, and was committed for a month,
and the order was reduced to 10s per week.
The defendant had now been on the club for
some time, and from the Miners' Club was
getting 10s per week, and from the Millom
Castle Club 9s per week, and the only pay-
ment he had to meet was 2s per month.  He
had never tried to pay his wife, and had only
contributed since the order was first made
one 12s 6d.  Mrs. KENNY was called, and
said there was due to her £7 10s. Her hus-
band had only paid her 12s 6d since the
order was made.  He had a pony and cart.
She knew he was out of work.  She was now
living with her sons, who had been very good
to her.  She had been married to defendant
35 years.
Michael KENNY said he was the eldest son.
Since October 6th his father had not been
working.  He received 19s from clubs per
week.  That night £1 16s was due to him
from the Millom Castle Mechanics, and he
had since October 5th received £5 3s 6d
since that club, and from the Hodbarrow
Miners' Club he had received £5 16s 6d
since that time.  The pony was worth £7
and the cart about £6 or £7.--Defendant:
Don't you think you are perjuring your-
self there about the cart and the club mon-
ey?  Don't you think your father never
made that cart?--The Chairman: Why don't
you pay this amount?--The Defendant:  I
cannot out of the club money I am getting.
--The Chairman asked Mr. WILLIAMS if he
would reduce it to £3.--Mr. WILLIAMS said
it was a large reduction.--The Chairman
said it was a large amount to pay, but if it
was reduce they would give him time to pay
it or go to goal.--Mr. WILLIAMS retired with
his client, and on coming back into court
said the defendant had not offered to pay
at all.  He would suggest that the claim be
not disturbed, but that he pay £3, but if he
still did not pay that, the whole £7 10s be
taken into consideration.  His client, how-
ever, could not consent to the claim being
reduced.--The magistrates' clerk said there
must be distress or commitment.--Mr.WILL-
IAMS said he would meet the defendant in
any way if he would make an effort to pay.
--The Bench made an order for the payment
or two months' imprisonment, suspended
for a month.
                MASTER AND SERVANT CASE.
    A farm servant named Margaret WEIGHMAN
was summoned by William FEARON, farmer,
Millom, in respect of a breach of contract.  Mr.
Frank LAWRENCE for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilson
BUTLER for the defendant.  In his opening, Mr.
LAWRENCE said the case was taken under the
Employers' and Workmens' Act.  The circumstances
were these.  The plaintiff, Mr. FEARON, required
a servant, and advertised for a servant girl.  The
defendant, who was in service with Mr. BRADLEY,
at the Wells, Bootle, applied, and he went to Mr.
BRADLEY'S and had an interview with her, and
eventually hired the defendant at £8 10s for the
half year.  The defendant agreed to take the sum,
and Mr. FEARON gave her the shilling as is custom-
ary on such occasions to bind the contract, and
also drew out a memorandum which the defendant
signed.  Mr. FEARON expected the defendant to
take up her services but she failed to do so, and
he received a letter which he believed was from her
brother.--Mr. BUTLER here interposed with an ob-
jection to the letter, but ultimately it was decided
to accept the letter.--Mr. LAWRENCE proceeding,
said the letter stated they did not know at her
home she had hired to Mr. FEARON, and that she
wanted £12 for the half year.  The plaintiff went
to Millom hiring fair, and there saw the defendant
in the act of hiring herself to another person and
he informed the person hiring her that she (defend-
ant) was already hired to him and he did not expect
her to break her contract.
 They, however, took no notice and the defendant
hired himself.  In consequence of this Mr. FEARON
was without a servant and had to go to Ulverston
to hire one.  The particulars of his claim were £1
5s the difference as between the sum at which he
hired the defendant and the wages he had to pay
the new girl; 9s 6d expenses in going to Ulverston,
and 6s for temporary labour--2s per day for three
days.  The total claim was for £2 0s 6d.  The plain-
tiff was then called, and gave evidence as to the
advertising for a girl and going to Bootle and hiring
the defendant at £8 10s for the half year.  He, how-
ever, got a letter from the defendant's brother and
the defendant failed to take up her service.  He had
to go to Ulverston and there hire a girl at £9 15s.
He had to get temporary labour costing 6s and his
expenses were 9s 6d.  His total claim was for £2 0s
    Cross-examined, plaintiff said he engaged the
defendant to milk.  Her principal work was in the
house but she had to look after the pigs and calves.
    Mr. BUTLER: Is it not a fact that you are making
this girl the butt of a disagreement you have with
another farmer?  No it is not.
    Did you go to Ulverston to hire men servants?--
    Where did you hire a man servant?--At Millom.
    Do you produce the advertisement?--No; but
I advertised for a girl for farm work.
    Mr. LAWRENCE:  You went to Ulverston solely
to hire a girl?--NO.
    Mr. BUTLER then addressed the Bench for the
defence, and said in his ten years' experience in
that court he had not come across a more prepost-
erous case brought into that court.  Here was a girl
in spite of her poorness, asked to pay £2 0s 6d.
Taking the items of the claim there was £1 5s for
difference in the wages.  He submitted that the £1
5s was not such a claim as could legally hold as
between plaintiff and defendant.  If the plaintiff
had to pay £1 5s more he had probably got a better
servant.  Then there was 9s 6d expenses to Ulvers-
ton.  The plaintiff had doubtless gone to Ulverston
to hire other servants.--The Chairman:  I don't
think you can say so---.  Mr. BUTLER, continuing,
said his defence did not lie so much on the various
items in the claim, but he submitted, and submitted
strongly, that the plaintiff had no claim.  He made
no claim when standing in the Millom Hiring Fair,
and it was two months after he brought it; purely
an after thought.  This poor girl was simply being
made a butt between her present employer and the
plaintiff.  Then, again, there was no definition of her
duties and he raised the point as to whether this case
came under the Employers' and Workmens' Act.

The Chairman:  We think this case has been pro-
perly brought before the court.--Mr. BUTLER: I
was going to submit that milking was purely sub-
sidiary to her domestic duties.--The Chairman
said the Bench was against Mr. BUTLER on that
    The defendant was then called, and said she
was the sole support of her mother, who lived at
Haverigg.  Mr. FEARON had said he would give
her £8 10s but she never said she would take
that amount.  He gave her 1s, and she afterwards
sent it back.  She was hired by DOWBIGGIN. Mr.
FEARON afterwards offered to give her a pound
more as she was a fine girl.
    Mr. LAWRENCE:  You say you did not agree to
hire with Mr. FEARON. ---No.
    But you took the shilling? ---Yes.
    You hired with Mrs. DOWBIGGIN.  How much
for? ---£10 ;  I got a better place.
    The Chairman:  We make an order for £1 17s 6d
and costs.
    Mr. LAWRENCE:  May I ask the Bench to allow
the advocate's fee.
    The Chairman:  Yes; but it is under two pounds;
we cannot.
    Mr. LAWRENCE:  Yes, sir; but the claim itself is
over two pounds.
    The Chairman (after consultation):  We allow 10s.